All Comments (127)

http://geo.ya.com/tagomiru/ estate real

does the pope still have his tatoo or was he not considered worthy of such consideration?

They should not deny their sexuality nor should they denounce it nor should they be forced to proclaim or defend their persuasion. Their gender is theirs and our gender is ours neither can challenge the other in a democracy where equality is for all. Some Christian factions are brutal and in traditional manner true to their faith they seek to sacrifice to atone for their sins and there are no exceptions through out society. It is best to allow people what they want without wrong to have and be what they want and leave the rest of us who have been wronged to do what we can to survive if we are less equal than others.

jekyle

http://estadium.ya.com/prjkd/ sex toys

Still not sure what you're trying to say here, Jihadist, in terms of seating at dinner parties...

It certainly seems a trivial thing to fuss about, especially if you're trying to say it justifies anti-gay agendas.

" Jihadist:

"I was not kidding about that seating arrangements or houseguest "fuss" when gays are invited to a home. A banker's wife in New York told me after dinner, over coffee and very discreetly, in pointing out the gay couple who were her guests."

Well, yes, these 'society' rules were certainly made to reinforce heterosexuality: Poor dears looking for enough divorced or single people to seat gay *couples* with shows a lot of bias right there, ....A gay couple isn't a couple like the straights.

As for the idea that gay houseguests are going to have loud sex when straights presumably wouldn't... That's just offensive, and again shows people being reduced to sex acts, and, apparently, ideas they're so sexually-compulsive that they'd *want* to have sex on someone else's bedsheets with kids in the next room. I mean, Gods, if anything, that shows how much the anti-gay propaganda *dehumanizes* people.

My own folks would separate me and a partner of whatever sex if we were unmarried, and my sweetie's folks, who think we're both really great people who will suffer eternally under the worst torture imaginable, put us together.

"You have no idea how some society hostess do fuss about everything and nothing to make sure their formal dinner parties are "just so". I never realised she was quite stressed, but never shows it. It was almost as if she was relieved in telling me that."

I was a wedding photographer. Yes, I know well.
"Just so" doesn't mean it's sane to pretend the whole world is straight. I mean, if someone's gonna bust a cork cause of something like that, they have worse problems than gay couples existing.

It's pretty simple. Seat couples together. If someone's thinking, "How can I ruin a really expensive occasion where I'm supposed to be the hostess by spooling myself up about my fragile sensibilities," ...They're missing the point, anyway.

Personally, I'm always more concerned about not having anything *nice enough to wear* to things remotely resembling that: or if I'll be in little enough pain not to be grimacing at people like it's the company I find painful: ... these things you describe are 'rich people problems.'

Occasions like that, anyone that wants to find a reason to be uncomfortable is gonna find one, whether or not you freak out about things seeming 'Not 100 percent straight and Christian Or Jewish!' People that are there to have a good time will also find a way.

"Her dinner party was just great. She's just being a very good, correct and accomodative hostess to her guests - making sure everyone is comfortable and everything was right. I felt quite bad telling her no pork products for me at her dinner. She accomodated my needs. In fact, she served us all lamb and plaice as meat and fish courses."

Gotta go with the lamb. :)

My impression is that pork's kind of hard for caterers to get right, anyway. These days, everyone's on crazy diets, particularly the rich, so that hardly seems a big deal. Actually, I know a lot of Pagan homesteaders, and there's apparently a good market for sheep for certain Muslim feasts involving 'sacrifice' (as in killing to cook with respect) of a sheep. Some customers seem to appreciate the not-freaking-out about that, apart from questions, "You know how to do this with respect and without cruelty, yes?"

People tend to freak out about ...things from farming if there isn't some Saran Wrap as an intermediary, honestly. :)

But, for me, well, there's some animals I won't eat, and some that I'll only eat if I know they were killed and/or raised with respect. There's usually an option to the commercial veal or farmed venison. :)

"Makes me seriously think about the such "social" adjusments we so called "straights" are making to accomodate gays who are our family, friends ansd colleagues. Minor they may be, but important for all in terms of acceptance and accepting of gays."

I think, it's not as hard an adjustment to make as it can be cracked-up to be. When the idea of 'propriety' is so rarefied that gay (or Muslim) people being around constitutes a *crisis,* then it's time to look at what's supposed to be important about these little rituals in the first place. :)

Frankly, a lot of them were originally *meant* to exclude people of certain types from the little artificial world all the place settings and arrangements and dress codes were *intended* to reinforce.

In America, things that are 'classy' have taken on a bit of a more socially-mobile concept... they've become competitions, rather than entitlements and obligations, even if the meaning of them is forgotten.

It's not a particularly noble meaning in the first place. It's expensive. It can be expensive fun, or expensive *not-fun.*

That's up to those who do it.

Not 'us queers.'

Unfortunately, the current US military seems to have forgotten the Constitution and WELDED itself to the Church.

As I read the excerpts of Teresa's letters in Van Biema's article in Time Magazine, I felt only compassion and regret for one who had labored for decades in the slums of Calcutta. And I'm deeply disappointed in her church's decision to violate her obvious trust in her confessors and superiors. For more of my thoughts on Teresa's loss of faith, see the 8/28/07 post on my blog at http://katalusis.blogspot.com/

As I read the excerpts of Teresa's letters in Van Biema's article in Time Magazine, I felt only compassion and regret for one who had labored for decades in the slums of Calcutta. And I'm deeply disappointed in her church's decision to violate her obvious trust in her confessors and superiors. For more of my thoughts on Teresa's loss of faith, see the 8/28/07 post on my blog at http://katalusis.blogspot.com/

Ryan,

Your reasoning and theology fails many tests:

1 Cor 7: 32-34 as per Professor JD Crossan in his book In Search of Paul, p.111: St. Paul was not interested in marriage because he assummed the second coming was imminent. Fortunately for us, he was wrong.

Matt 19: 12 " For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."

Not the way to go in my opinion and not a good reference for promoting celibacy.

Definition of a eunuch:

1. A castrated man employed as a harem attendant or as a functionary in certain Asian courts.
2. A man or boy whose testes are nonfunctioning or have been removed.
3. Informal. An ineffectual, powerless, or unmasculine man.

And the Last Supper? It was not an historic event. See http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/016_Supper_and_Eucharist

An excerpt:

"At the same time, Luedemann concludes that the portrayal of Jesus celebrating such a ritual on the night before his death is not historical. He is clear that there is "no generic relationship" between any actual final meal and the Lord's Supper understood in cultic terms. He also denies the Passover character of the supper as a Markan creation. Like Meier (below), Luedemann does accept the saying (Mark 14:25) about drinking wine in the kingdom of God as authentic. He concludes: (this saying) "hardly came into being in the early community, for in it Jesus does not exercise any special function for believers at the festal meal in heaven which is imminent. Only Jesus' expectation of a the future kingdom of God stands at the centre, not Jesus as saviour, judge or intercessor."

What do many contemporary, religious historians conclude about the historic reliability of said Catholic foundations:

John 14: 26 not historic ( 62-. Spirit under Trial: (1) 1Q: Luke 12:11-12 = Matt
10:19-20; (2) Mark 13:11 = Matt 10: 19-20 = Luke 21:14-15; (3) John 14:26.)

Matt 16: 18-19 not historic (73- Who Is Jesus?: (1) Gos. Thom. 13; (2a) Mark
8:27-30 = Matt 16:13-20 = Luke 9:18-21; (2b) Gos. Naz. 14; (2c) John 6:67-69.)

1 Timothy- not written by St. Paul (See Crossan’s “In Search of Paul”, Harper, San
Francisco, 2004, p.105)

2 Peter 1:20

Since Father Edward Schillebeeckx basically ruled out prophecies by concluding God does not know
the future, one can rule out the infallible nature of this verse.

Also from Raymond Brown’s, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2 Peter was
the last canonical work written i.e. ~ 130 AD, author unknown. Tis a bit dated for use in claiming infallibility plus the verse is not from Jesus or Peter but some possible remembrance of a scribe.

From another source:
Also think about the logic (or lack thereof).
“I believe the Bible is inspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.” Would your
anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book
or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:
x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani (sp?)
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran”

more “logic”?
“I believe there is One God Jehovah because He is revealed in the infallible
Bible. I believe the Bible is infallible because it is the Word of the One God Jehovah.”

Again, this what some leading experts are saying about the foundations of Catholicism. As I have noted before, I find it disturbing that the Vatican remains silent concerning the conclusions of these experts. But hey, they are still clinging to Limbo so one cannot expect much with respect to coming to grips with the reality of history.

That was me with the anonymous post at 11:10 a.m.

Ryan:

You're right - your reasons don't make sense to me.

**(1) Jesus Christ, in instituting the Eucharist at the Last Supper, the constitutive act of the priesthood, was in the company of the twelve apostles alone - perhaps the only time when their weren't women with him.**

Seems to me that if you were going to use that as a reason to exclude women from anything, it would be from receiving the Eucharist. (Not that I think that would be a good idea.)

**(1) Within the Godhead, God the Father gives everything to the Son, who receives and returns it to the Father. They themselves both give totally to the Holy Spirit, who receives and returns it to the Father.
(3) Christ gives his whole self to the Church, who then receives and reciprocates to Him.**

Looking at your earlier analogy of the wheat, this makes Jesus a spiritual hermaphrodite.

**(1) Inducting women into ministry has not saved any of the mainline denominations from very serious clergy shortages of their own. There is no reason to suspect it would save the Catholic Church from hers.**

I don't recall contending that it would solve a shortage problem, only thay exclusion based on number of X chromosomes was illogical. Perhaps the reason for fewer semnarians across the ecumenial board is dissatisfaction with organized religion in general.

**(1) Church clergymen's children were inheriting church property.**

So make a clear, legal, written, notarized account of what constitutes church property. Then if an unscrupulous clergyperson tries to will it to his or her children, the church has grounds to contest the will.

**(1) Both St. Paul and Our Lord commend voluntary celibacy to disciples that would follow Jesus especially, St. Paul because celibacy leaves one undivided, Jesus himself by assuring those who freely forego a family that they will be greatly rewarded in heaven.**

My reading of Paul was that he didn't want people wasting time taking care of families becausehe thought Jesus was going to return within his lifetime. And he had no love for women in general.

**(1) An unmarried man is free from concerns about wife and children to give himself entirely and exclusively to his parish as Christ to the Church, even, should it prove necessary (it has in the past on numerous occasions) to the point of giving his life.**

I will admit that it takes a very special woman to be able to stay married to a clergyman. I couldn't do it. But then again, I couldn't be married to a policeman either. But I've known women who can and do.

As for dinner, sure, come on over any time you're in town. You may even be fiond yourself breaking with a lesbian ordained minister and her wife if they happen to also be in town.

Arminius,

"You are right that the existence of the Deity cannot be proven by any empirical methods. It is in the heart. I believe that God IS, and is with me. Can I prove it? No."

I recognize the importance of your personal experience to you. My point is that your experience has nothing to do with the universe or with the meaning of anyone else's life. A belief in God is a belief about the universe, especially when the belief includes the notion that the God has universal authority over humans. Questions about the universe are the realm of empirical science. I have met a few people who have experiences similar to yours but who refrain from framing these in universal terms. Instead, they find meaning in these for only their own lives.

Lepidopteryx,

That sounds exactly like how I serve dinner! It sounds great. And if it's an invitation, I happily accept! :)

(I NEVER use emoticons, but I couldn't help myself)

Lepidopteryx:

***Ok, you've piqued my curiosity. What are the reasons?***

Sure. You might not like the principles, or think they are true, or even reasonable, but here goes.

--------------------
Male-only Priesthood
--------------------
These reasons are entirely based on principle, as becomes starkly clear given the Church's complete refusal to engage the question of ordaining women contrary to all obvious benefit.

(1) Jesus Christ, in instituting the Eucharist at the Last Supper, the constitutive act of the priesthood, was in the company of the twelve apostles alone - perhaps the only time when their weren't women with him.
(a) It does no good speaking of social conventions regarding women, because Jesus routinely shocked his followers (including the apostles) by flouting all such conventions. In Catholic belief, remember, the most exalted (non-divine) human ever to exist is the Blessed Virgin Mary, a woman. Also, in all gospel accounts, the first person to discover the resurrection and to tell others the good news, was Mary Magdalene, also a woman. Hardly pittling roles.
(b) It does no good saying that letter editors removed references to women at the Last Supper, when such editors presumably left any number of references to women in their places. Jesus talked with prostitutes, rebuked town leaders in favor of captured adultresses, received hospitality from women. He "bothered" to teach single women (which no self-respecting Jew, or pagan for that matter, of Jesus' day would have "wasted time" doing).
(c) At the Last Supper, right when you'ld expect a sexist man to want women around (cooking), the accounts are all explicit that the apostles handled all the arrangements for what became the institution of the Eucharist, the central priestly act... even though just a month or so later, the apostles would all gather in prayer in the same room, together with Mary and other women, praying for the Holy Spirit (the act most fundamental to all the baptized faithful).

(2) Aside from that very big (and primary) reason, there is the philosophical observation of complementarity and the theological concept of iconography.
(a) Masculinity and femininity are concepts both relative to each other, Foucault's 'binaries pairs' if you will, though in human life they don't play out that way. The West isn't the only place where this concept arises. The Chinese call it Yin and Yang. The Persians encased it in their Zoroastrianism. In fact, it appears in some form or another in almost every religion. It's fundamental even to agricultural life - the farmer inseminates (say with wheat seeds) and the earth reciprocates by yielding fruit (30, 50, and 100-fold the number of seeds). Masculinity is principle of initiative and insemination; femininity of receptivity and reciprocation. Combined, the two bear a LOT of fruit. (It is a terrible thing when masculinity degrades into machismo, or when femininity is degraded into frilliness.)
(b) The Catholic Church sees this yin-yang (though not in those words) principle being played out everywhere:
(1) Within the Godhead, God the Father gives everything to the Son, who receives and returns it to the Father. They themselves both give totally to the Holy Spirit, who receives and returns it to the Father.
(2) God gives everything (including His Son and His Holy Spirit) to his creation in an act of love, hoping, longing only to receive love in return.
(3) Christ gives his whole self to the Church, who then receives and reciprocates to Him.
(4) Within the Church, the clergy are to give themselves entirely to the laity, who then receive and reciprocate.
(5) In marriages, the husband is to give his entire self to his wife, who is to receive and reciprocate.
(6) In families, the parents give their whole selves to their children, who then receive and reciprocate.
(c) The iconographic principle is that invisible realities are made more present to us when they are made more present to our senses. This yin-yang complementarity is real, and is made more manifest by making it more visible. A man at the head of the congregation makes more visible Christ's masculinity (with respect to the Church, which St. Paul calls His Bride) than a woman does.

practical reason:
(1) Inducting women into ministry has not saved any of the mainline denominations from very serious clergy shortages of their own. There is no reason to suspect it would save the Catholic Church from hers.

principled reasons, additional:
(1) The Catholic Church cannot save herself. She knows this. She's (we're) a wreck. The outside world doesn't know the half of it. That's why we don't try to save ourselves (sometimes we even shoot ourselves in the foot, for some reason I can't quite understand).

We await in joyful hope for the coming of our Lord Jesus to save us.

We're also saddened that we don't do a better job of making that clear in how we live our day-to-day lives.

--------
Celibacy
--------
It is at first, and primarily practical; as often happens, principles arise from practice.

practical:
(1) Church clergymen's children were inheriting church property.
(2) Unmarried men are more free from obligation and constraint, thus have more time, mobility, and ability to take risks.
(note) Selecting clergy from men who have already promised celibacy is not essential to the priesthood - but useful to it, good for it, and for the Church. The Catholic Church in Eastern countries does permit the ordination of married men. The marriage of already ordained men has never been permitted (following St. Paul's injunction that clergy should have been married once at most).

theological principles:
(1) Both St. Paul and Our Lord commend voluntary celibacy to disciples that would follow Jesus especially, St. Paul because celibacy leaves one undivided, Jesus himself by assuring those who freely forego a family that they will be greatly rewarded in heaven.

theological principles that arose from the above:
(1) An unmarried man is free from concerns about wife and children to give himself entirely and exclusively to his parish as Christ to the Church, even, should it prove necessary (it has in the past on numerous occasions) to the point of giving his life. Is it a humanly impossible ideal? Absolutely. Priests who try on their own are sunk before they've begun; but with God's help anything is possible.

---

Those are the basic practical and principled reasons for the church's stubborn maintenance of a male-only priesthood consisting primarily of celibates.

Didn't say you'ld follow them, or agree with them - but only that we have them.

Concerned the Christian:

'From these hallucinations, came one of the most violent religions humankind has ever seen as evidenced by the Third Axis of Evil aka Iran and the "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia and the following contemporary acts of terror in general supported by Iran and the "Wannabees" financially and "theologically" with the blood money of oil profits:

the arson/terror acts of seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the UK train bombings, the train bombings in Spain, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics.'

Actually the most violent religion humankind has ever seen is the version of Christianity practiced by our Moron In Chief and as influenced by the Jewish led neocons and the Israeli lobbyists, who misled us into Iraq and continues to support its occupation and that of Palestine.

Victoria has it right. Islam is basically a peace loving religion, but does reserve the right to defend itself.

Compared to the hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslim women and children slaughtered by the Butcher of Washington with his super powered war machine, and the millions of Palestinian and Iraqi families forced into concentration camps in neighboring countries, the Muslim backed terror that you cite is trifling and more than justified.

Surely your above mentioned oil fields could not be motivating the actions of our beloved Shrub and his puppeteers.

Ryan,

In our diocese, most of the baptisms are done by married deacons. These deacons also give sermons and assist at Mass. And our parish priests are hardly stressed since as you noted there are significantly fewer attending Mass these days. And most of these parish priests have never given a decent sermon again reinforcing my conclusion that most priests are not the "cream of the male crop".

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated:

Your data is accurate but skewed because of neglect of a very significant detail. Half of those describing themselves Catholic do not attend Mass but 1-4 times annually, and are in effect making no contribution to the life of the Church - certainly they are not going off to seminary.

In the U.S. there are more priests per practicing Catholic now than at any time in American history.

One of the things that makes priests feel stress and burnout is that nonpracticing Catholics still want baptisms (usually), marriages (eventually), and funerals (almost always) which are fairly labor intensive for clergy and parish staff.

Jihadist,

The first thing is to try to step out of a certain Jerry Springer kind of mindset that has much of the English-speaking world enrapt. Not everything is everybody's business. In my mind, life is on much more of a need-to-know basis.

I'm afraid I cannot offer a single rule about "when to ask" or "when to tell" except perhaps as the information becomes relevant. Except for things that are really exciting us, that's how we handle most of what's going on in our brain anyway.

If the ELCA hasn't a problem ordaining practicing homosexuals, then it doesn't seem the sort of question they even need to ask. If the American people have determined that sexual proclivity is not a job qualification for public office, it again seems irrelevant. If the Boy Scouts have determined that men who engage in homosexual activity are not to lead their member organizations, then it seems a relevant question to ask, or important information to volunteer - simply as a matter of integrity, whether the Boy Scouts are right or wrong in so requiring.

To summarize, I think (as I said in my second post on this forum) that "Don't ask, don't tell" is hypocritical; now I add that it is also cowardly and unwise. I would rather, "Ask when relevant, speak with integrity".

J -

One thing I've never quite understood is the concept of telling folks which chair to sit in when you invite them over to dinner. People who worry too much abouot where each person sits tend to stress themselves to the point that they aren't able to enjoy their own parties. I tend to be much more informal.

If you come to my house for dinner, there will be pots and pans of food on the rangetop, with a stack of plates on the counter, and napkins and flatware on the table. You will load up your plate with as much as you want of whichever foods please you, and you will not be asked to eat anything you find unpalatable or otherwise offensive, nor will you be considered rude for your refusal of such foods. For my part, I will make every reasonable attempt to ensure that there is something available for everyone - I will not serve pork as an entree if I have invited Muslim or Jewish friends over, and I always have lots of vegetable dishes, so you will not go hungry or be forced to fill up on potatoes if you eschew meat.
There will be beer and wine for those who like them, and I always have tea, milk, and juice in the fridge. If you have special beverage preferences, I will not object in the slightest if you bring your own.
You will carry your plate to the table, sit in the chair that most appeals to your bottom, and hopeflly we will all enjoy food and fellowship.

Islamist,

"pwtffts"= "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie"s aka angels such as your/our Gabriel which by Islamic koranic law you have to believe in. (The Mormons have a similar flaw in their religious foundation as they are required to believe in the "pwtfft" aka "a raised personage" called Moroni.)

Which brings us to The Jihadist and other like "liberal" Muslims. They refuse to accept the reality of history i.e. Big Mo was a "holie hallucinator" as he supposedly saw visions of a "pwtfft" aka Gabriel. From these hallucinations, came one of the most violent religions humankind has ever seen as evidenced by the Third Axis of Evil aka Iran and the "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia and the following contemporary acts of terror in general supported by Iran and the "Wannabees" financially and "theologically" with the blood money of oil profits:

the arson/terror acts of seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the UK train bombings, the train bombings in Spain, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics.

Instead of accepting the reality of history and demanding a deletion of Big Mo and his scribes' koranic militaristic agenda , The Jihadist and her ilk continue an almost 24/7 "wishy wash" with verbage about other religions, other life styles and other economic and government institutions while Islam continues to bring us closer to a world war.

It is important that we continue to remind The Jihadist and her ilk of the seriousness of the situation. This will continue until we see an acceptance of reality and a condemnation of the actions of Iran and the "Wannabees".

One hopes and prays that you will be teaching the Muslim orphans love and respect for all of humankind and not hatred for all things not associated with your "holie hallucinator".

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated

What is "pwtffts"? Is there something I should know on what is really going on between you and Jihadist? It looks really personal with you. Better for you to be involved in something like my new project, a hostel and school for orphans?

Cheers

David,

A mission being slowly accomplished as those "pwtffts" are slowly being deleted from our brainwashed minds. Let the healing continue in joy and gladness!!!! "Free at last, Free at last!!!"

Concerned,

You know, your posts have gotten so predictable that you can actual abbreviate your rhetoric and we all know what your talking about "pwtffts".

It's getting sad.

There she is again, The Jihadist making commentary about some "not so important" issues especially in comparison to the flaws in the foundations of Islam, flaws that continue to threaten the world. When might we expect her condemnation of the Third Axis of Evil, aka Iran? When can we expect her acceptance that Mohammed was a illiterate, hallucinating warmonger bent on plundering and pillaging the lands of the infidels? When can we expect The Jihadist to finally admit Gabriel and the other "pwtffts" never existed??

Probably not until the Islamic oil wells run dry and there is no longer any oil profits to invest in Islamic propaganda and terror!!!!

Senator Larry ("Footsie") Craig believes in the literal truth of the Holy Bible. That didn't stop him from lewd behavior near the fetid floor of an airport men's room, aiming for a quick trick with some passerby. Believing in the Bible's literal truth didn't stop Craig from hollering about "family values" while he cheated and lied and lived a secret life as a pederast. Believing in the Bible's literal truth may be overrated. But Jesus got one thing right: See Matthew 25 about 'whited sepulchers" and how hypocrisy is a serious sin. Then contemplate the life of Footsie Craig, menace of the men's room and Lothario of the lavatory.

Paganplace

I was not kidding about that seating arrangements or houseguest "fuss" when gays are invited to a home. A banker's wife in New York told me after dinner, over coffee and very discreetly, in pointing out the gay couple who were her guests.

You have no idea how some society hostess do fuss about everything and nothing to make sure their formal dinner parties are "just so". I never realised she was quite stressed, but never shows it. It was almost as if she was relieved in telling me that.

Her dinner party was just great. She's just being a very good, correct and accomodative hostess to her guests - making sure everyone is comfortable and everything was right. I felt quite bad telling her no pork products for me at her dinner. She accomodated my needs. In fact, she served us all lamb and plaice as meat and fish courses.

Makes me seriously think about the such "social" adjusments we so called "straights" are making to accomodate gays who are our family, friends ansd colleagues. Minor they may be, but important for all in terms of acceptance and accepting of gays.

Best regards as ever.
J

I'm still kind of flabbergasted, here, about the place settings, Jihadist, not that my partner and I are of the Great Gatsby set or anything...

It's like saying, "If we have interracial marriages, how do we seat them at the segregated lunch counter?"

There she is again, The Jihadist making commentary about some "not so important" issues especially in comparison to the flaws in the foundations of Islam, flaws that continue to threaten the world. When might we expect her condemnation of the Third Axis of Evil, aka Iran? When can we expect her acceptance that Mohammed was a illiterate, hallucinating warmonger bent on plundering and pillaging the lands of the infidels? When can we expect The Jihadist to finally admit Gabriel and the other "pwtffts" never existed??

Probably not until the Islamic oil wells run dry and there is no longer any oil profits to invest in Islamic propaganda and terror!!!!

Umm, Btw, J (hello, by the way:)

What's this? Are you joking?

"Gay couples do make hosts scramble a wee bit when inviting them for formal dinner parties."

Umm... *gasp.* Poor dears. What will they ever do? I'll go ahead and become straight right now: wouldn't want to mess up the place settings or nothing.

"The host would have to find single/divorced males or females to balance out gender representation and ensure the seating arrangements are well interspede and balanced with male, female, male, female."

Or.... they could.... Not?

"As for gay houseguests, do they go by the same rules as non-gay couples? No excessively loud humpings to disturb and wake the host's children, other houseguests and servants? The host's house is his/her house. S/he has other people to think of and take care too."

Umm, again... Are you *joking,* here?

Hi Jihadist. Thanks for the claim that I'm a neo-Renaissance man. On the other hand, I could just be a dilettante, flitting from topic to topic like a generalist pollinator.

I rarely visit Cal Thomas or Colson's threads unless I want a good laugh. There is almost no point posting there, unless you purposefully want to rile someone up.

Regarding HL's link to Oliver Carre, I haven't had time to visit, but I will. Bernard Lewis reminds me of an academic who knows how things are and hasn't questioned his assumptions in years. Oooops. Bernard Lewis is an academic who doesn't knows how things are and hasn't questioned his assumptions in years! I think the last time I saw him was on Charlie Rose. He went on and on about how Arabs only recognize and respect strength and see compromise as weakness. His premise was that if the West was very strong, the Arabs would respect the U.S. and essentially role over. A nice hypothesis, thoroughly refuted. Arabs probably do respect strength, but only if it is continually reinforced.

I'm off to Strawberry Music Festival through Labor Day Weekend. No internet, so I won't be checking in until next Monday or Tuesday.

Cheers
Maurie

"PaganPlace,

"Well, I am replying. Let's try to keep communicating.

"The French Quarter was spared because it is the Crescent of the Crescent City, i.e., it is above sea level, shaped like a crescent. As to the fundamentalists rant, well, typical of those benighted pathetic people."

Well, of course... that only makes it stupid as *well* as mean-spirited and basically-psychopathic to call for the destruction of the city by storm and flood in order to get at what's literally on the high ground. ;)

Lepidopteryx

Thanks reminding on the other forms of "tell". I had only being going on actual verbal "tell".

Maurie Beck

Thanks for your post. Islamist is still in a state of shock over some posts in Cal Thomas's and Charles Colson's threads on this question. I told him he should have read the posts in the threads re Pat Robertson's death. Ma foi! Actually, he's busy with a new project. Will be back.

Are you sure you're not just a evolutionary biologist, but a neo-Rennaissance man with an interest, a hunger for knowledge for everything?

Better to be a happy and non-hypocrital non-believer full of wonder than a believer full of certainties and judgement of others. God knows how many of the latter I've met and have to deal with in my life.

The link by HL is useful and Olivier Carre do provide another perspective of one of the strains of thoughts going on about Islam and Muslims by Muslims and non Muslims. He's one of those who look at Islam and Muslims from the prism of Islam's history and sociology itself. Less error there, than say, Bernard Lewis.

I don't think atheism as espoused by such writers as Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris, Hirsi Ali, Susan Jacoby, etc. is doomed.

At their best, they made really valid points about organised religions and blind belief in the "supernatural" or god/s, and spurious interpretations and abuses of belief in God for very human objectives and interests. I prefer to books by scientists such as Richard Dawkins than by the like of Christopher Hitchens.

Norrie Hoyt

Thanks for the uselful list of possible responses. I did made a swine of myself over your ham sandwish, being a bit pig-headed about it and hamming the matter up, and thus hogtied this question a bit.

Best regards as always
J

I noticed that Ryan never answered Lep's question about whether she and her husband or people who can not produce children should still have sex? Sex is a beautiful give and take between 2 people who love each other a bonding - and whether 2 people bond or just enjoy someone's body has nothing to do with procreation. Reminds me of every sperm is sacred - the Monty Python sketch and the Protestant couple - Her saying that they had sex twice and they had 2 children and him explaining that he could wear a condom.
I know of people who have left the Catholic church because of their biblical injunction that you should have as many children as God will allow you to have. It is just recently that many Evangelical churches have also decided that women should have as many children as God lets them have.
It is your choice or should be to have children or not. Some people just don't make good parents. They know this. Should they bring children into the world and then mistreat them? Some women are warned not to become pregnant because it is dangerous for them - should they never be allowed to find someone and marry - because they can not procreate?
I'm sorry Ryan, I can not support your thesis, but it is your thesis and you can use it in your family because in the end, you and your family are the only ones you should (or anyone should) be able to make decisions for - because you do not live anyone else's life.

Regarding don't ask don't tell. Larry Craig, Republican, conservative, family values Senator from Idaho, USA has just claimed he isn't gay after being busted for solicitation and lewd behavior in a public bathroom at Minneapolis Airport. Another religious hypocrite bites the dust. However, before we all get a warm glow over the outing of some right-winger's gay revelation (or denial thereof), it might be time for a little reflection on his pain.

Two years ago there was a Major from Spokane, Washington who had similar bonifides (Republican, family values, etc.) as Sen. Craig. When I first heard about him I laughed and thought, "Serves him right!" Then I saw a PBS Frontline documentary on him. The documentary made him human and cast him as a gay man in a time (1950's boyhood) when even acknowledging one's gayness was often impossible. The man obviously didn't even know what his sexual orientation was until his midlife crisis. Spokane had a recall and all his former friends and colleagues deserted him and he was forced from office. In the meantime he was no longer diatribing against godless gays. He died of cancer shortly after the recall.

Perhaps poor Senator Craig is going through a crisis similar to the former Spokane Mayor. Or, perhaps he is like the Former Reverend Ted Haggard, the methamphetamine, gay-prostitute-using preacher who used to talk with President Bush weekly, who claims he is now cured of his deviant behavior.

HL

Thanks for the post.

Jihadist,

If someone spontaneously and gratuitously tells you they're gay, these are useful reponses:

[1] "And..."
[2] "Yes?..."
[3] "Is there a reason you're telling me this?"
[4] "Do I know any of your partners?"
[5] "Are you inviting me to something?"
[6] "Holy Toledo!"
[7] "So was Michaelangelo."
[8] "I wish you were Pope!"
[9] "Why aren't you a Republican Congressperson?"
[10] Are you the pastor of a megachurch?"
[11] What do you like to do?"

I note that you listed a couple of these.

Regards.

Ryan,

Based on your previous commentary, you apparently were bred, born and brainwashed in the Catholic faith. Been there done that. If you want to escape to be a "Reality Catholic" read the books written by many of the top NT exegetes. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html. Note four of the NT scholars are On Faith panelists. Their work has been well researched and their conclusions "eye-opening".

With respect to the number of Catholic priests in the USA, see

Changes in the Priesthood in the U.S., 1965 to 2003- http://www.beliefnet.com/story/164/story_16491_1.html

U.S. Data 1965 1985 1995 2003
Diocesan priests 35,925 35,052 32,349 29,285
Religious priests 22,707 22,265 16,705 14,349
Total priests 58,632 57,317 49,054 43,634

vs Catholic 45.60 52.30 57.40 63.40
population in millions

Based on personal observation, the average age of priests in the USA is over 55 and most are not "top notch" speakers or thinkers. And based on a "lady in the know", over 10 % are homosexual.

And at least in our diocese, there are priests who are still being defrocked because of rather recent deviant behaviour.

J,
I think perhaps you're misinterpreting "tell" in this case.

Did I tell my employer "I'm straight." No. But I checked the box marked "Married" on my application and I could put my husband's name under "Spouse" when I signed up for health insurance coverage. That constitiutes an indirect "tell". Because my lesbian officemate's spouse is a woman, she cannot cover her under the family insurance plan. That's a "tell."

I have pictures of my husband and daughter on my desk at work. If someone asks who those lovely people are and I say "Thst's my husband and daughter," I have "told".
Why should my lesbian officemate not be able to say "That's my wife and daughter" when asked about the pictures on her desk without facing condemnation?

Mr. Ryan Haber

I read all your posts here with great interest. I will go back to one on - "Don't ask, don't tell."

So, let us have a few scenarios here:

You don't know someone is gay, and s/he tells you:

"I'm gay".

Some possible and/or improbable responses:

- Congratulations!

- Why are you telling me this?

- Does your parents/husband/wife/children/second cousin twice removed/employer know?

- How long have you been gay?

- When did you know, how do you know you are gay?

- Who's your partner and how long have you been together?

- What do you want from me?

- What do you want me to do about it?

- (Lost for words)

- (Not saying anything in case whatever comes out of one's mouth will be taken wrongly)

Ad hoc conclusion: When someone tells one something one don't know about someone, one tends to ask follow-up questions - You tell, I ask. Like someone saying s/he has an allergy in eating shrimps, or hates broccolis, or is vegetarian when there is no religious injunctions against being a carniverous, lusty meat eater of dead animals.

We can assume that a gay telling an employer that s/he's gay merely means that s/he;

- wants the same benefits as a straight person would have if married with or without children

- that there be no homophobic reactions in the workplace and to focus on what s/he does at the workplace rather than with whom and how in the bed.

Who can really remember, care or make a fuss that Michelangelo the artist, WH Auden the poet, and John Maynard Keynes the economist, are all gays over what they contribute to arts and social science?

Who cared to remember that Oscar Wilde was vilified, dragged to court and jailed for being gay and for having a relationship with a consenting adult until the said consenting adult have a pang of guilt or second thoughts on the relationship? Lord Alfred Douglas told on the nature of their relationship and it cost Oscar Wilde's reputation in his own time.

Gay couples do make hosts scramble a wee bit when inviting them for formal dinner parties. The host would have to find single/divorced males or females to balance out gender representation and ensure the seating arrangements are well interspede and balanced with male, female, male, female. No one really noticed during free seating buffet brunches, lunches and dinners.

As for gay houseguests, do they go by the same rules as non-gay couples? No excessively loud humpings to disturb and wake the host's children, other houseguests and servants? The host's house is his/her house. S/he has other people to think of and take care too.

And back to "don't ask, don't tell". It should, perhaps, also apply to both gays and non-gays not telling others, say, they have no sense of style. Telling someone, "Blue is so last year!" is never appreciated, no? Even when asked for an opinion and given as so?

So, when is it right to ask? When is it right to tell? To whom? Why? Prickly question, prickly response. Prying question, defensive/offensive response. Asking someone if s/he's gay is like walking in a landmine. Being told by someone s/he's gay, in some instances, is also like being hurled a verbal grenade for some - especially those who are bigoted and/or homophobic.

Thank you and best regards.
J

I have to agree. Growing up in Houston my family and I would make stops to New Orleans.. and I just remember trying to take everything in, not sure exactly how I knew at 10 or so that 'THIS' was life.. and not just what I'd experienced in Texas.

My thoughts go out to you Terra, Lep and all the others who are fighting for that life.. blessed be.

Bush is the biggest mistake this country has ever had.

Terra,

You brought me to tears. Such resplendent praise of such a wonderful city! I thought that more than the crap there survived. Is not Jackson Square OK? Is not the cathedral there? Are the blessed players of jazz there still, some of them? Is not fresh shrimp in the restaurants?

Damn that liar Shrub for abandoning that jewel of a city.

Yep...the French Quarter was spared...the Witch shops, the bars and girly shows were fine..it was the Churches that flooded and closed down. I do not think God had anything to do with it. Did She?

It was the lake on the low side that flooded, not the ole Missisip that flows by the Quarter.

terra

Ryan:

**Celibacy is required and women excluded from the priesthood for practical and principled reasons.**

Ok, you've piqued my curiosity. What are the reasons?

Arminius:

**Anybody with more than three neurons to string together knew that New Orleans was a goner if a hurricane hit it at the right angle.**

And therein lies the problem. He only has two, and they don't fire in sequence on days with a "y" in dhem.

Arminius,
I can not think of a finer compliment then to be said to have the soul of New Orleans. She is like a beautiful lady...older and worn, but you can still see the fine bones and the spark that made her the belle of all cities.

I came on vacation to Louisiana in 1991. My (then) boy friend brought me...we stayed a month. Came back a few months later, I found this land and bought it. Why? I visited New Orleans. I knew what I would see before I turned that corner. I knew the smell and feel of the air...the life of that city is amazing.

The kids tap dancing to a clarrinet on the side walk, a man playing a jazz guitar, City Park, Saint Louis Cathedral,Marie Lavoux voodoo shop, the fortunetellers lined up, playing a washboard with a spoon, gator on a stick,sipping Daquaries in the courtyard next to the fountain at Pat O'Brians...of course feeding pop corn to the pidgeons.
New Orleans was flooded after the storm had passed because the levees failed...and then it took a week of suffering and death for bush to get help to the city...I was learning a lesson watching those waters with the people on roof tops pleading for help. I saw Bush stand within the bright light provided by the Army with Saint Louis cathedralas a backdrop and make promises...did everyone know that all else was darkness? People were living with no water, no electric, no hope and no trust. And Bush stood there and promised that he would see that New Orleans was made right.

He's a lier.

New Orleans is so special, so unique that all the world would suffer a loss if the people and culture of New Orleans dissappeared. But it's a black city...a city of Southern Decadence, VooDoo Queens, Witch Shops,Horse drawn buggies, and white mules with top hated drivers, a streetcar named Desire,Steam boats, cobblestones, ghosts and tombs, congo square and antibellum homes...and the only folks who care are those who have been there...they know.

I don't know if I have the soul of New Orleans..but she has my heart.

terra

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated,

***Is it not also about the lack of interest in becoming a "clergyperson"? A good example is my Catholic Church. The number of men interested in the priesthood continues to plummet. The standards were therefore lowered, questions were not asked, celibacy was still required, women are still denied their rightful role and we are learning the lessons the hard way to the "tune" of a billion dollars so far.***

In point of fact, your statement is false. The number of seminarians DID plummet in the 1970s, stabilized in the 1980s-1990s, and has been steadily (if slowly) increasing since then. Moreover, if you will recall the bru-ha-ha that ensued the 2005 Apostolic Visitation to seminaries, you will note that questions have been asked. The bru-ha-ha was about what questions were being asked by the Visitation. To wit, questions were being asked to determine the soundness of formation, the conformity of teaching with the Church's, and the manner with which immorality (especially sexual) is dealt at those institutions. The bru-ha-ha had construed the Visitation as a witch hunt targeting "gays".

Celibacy is required and women excluded from the priesthood for practical and principled reasons. The Catholic Church, infuriatingly enough, does not do whatever the ACLU or ACT-UP wants them to do. Curiously enough, the Catholic Church has been around much longer than those organizations, and we have rather good reason to expect we will be around some time after they have disappeared.

As for the billion-dollar-lesson, yes, we are still learning it. The harm was done, not recently though - you will note how many cases are not liable to prosecution due to their datedness. In fact, most of the perpetrators were trained and ordained in the 1960s and 1970s. The problem is most assuredly not one caused by the current generation, but by their parents.

PaganPlace,

Well, I am replying. Let's try to keep communicating.

The French Quarter was spared because it is the Crescent of the Crescent City, i.e., it is above sea level, shaped like a crescent.

As to the fundamentalists rant, well, typical of those benighted pathetic people.

As to the Shrub's comment, you are absolutely correct. Anybody with more than three neurons to string together knew that New Orleans was a goner if a hurricane hit it at the right angle. "Brownie, you're doing a hecka of a job!" will live in infamy as ome of the stupidest comments ever by anyone.

Arminius, on New Orleans:

" Arminius:

I wept when it was flooded. I was outraged at the Shrub's inept efforts to help. (Shrub = Bush = Darth Dubya.)"

Did you also know that some prominent Fundies tried to call on 'God' to smite the 'Gay Pride' celebration and 'immoral' French Quarter, just prior to the hurricane coming?

Funny how that was the only area *spared* the disaster.

As has often happened.

Many Wiccans look on this as part of the *bad juju* that is tring to invoke 'God' to hurt gay people.

As for Bush's insistence, 'No one knew this could have happened!'

...He obviously hadn't been watching the Discovery Channel for ten years.